On Tue, 21 Mar 1995, George Frajkor wrote:
> Greg Grose writes:>> England won the Battle of Britain during the Second World War> using equipment far inferior to that owned by the Nazis at the time.> The chief fighter airplane> for the British airforce was the Hawker Hurricane, the last
Oh really? May be that is why one of the German fighter ace when Herman
Goring during the third week of the Battle for Britain was enquiring what would
the Luftflotte (Luftwaffe fighter units) need to defeat the RAF, answered
"Spitefires".
> The legendary Spitfire figher was in the beginning of> its development and did not become superior to German fighers such as> the Messerschmitt and Focke-Wulfe until two years or so after the air> battle was won. It is little known that more German airplanes were
The F190 A's did not appear during the Battle of Britain in large
numbers, as although superior in some aspects to Spitefires Focke was
out not politically correct with Berlin. So most of the Focke design such
as the Focke jetfighter (available for mass production by 1940-41) was
not used at all.
The Me Bf190 A through E series were really absolute by that time.
You are right that it was better then the French Morane, but the primary
advantage the Germans had was in organization and communication during
the later part of summer of 1940.

Roman Kanala wrote:
> A MIG has no chance in a combat with a Western aircraft because it has> no electronics that would keep pace with. That means a MIG will be shot> long before the pilot gets aware what's gonna happen to him.>> That's the reason Finland bought F-18 and Switzerland bought F-18> Hornets, too: they are heavy, bulky, expensive, but there is nothing> better on the market these days. We are living in an electronics world> where the better software wins.>> MIG is a hopelessly obsolete equipment and is a good buy only when the> expected enemy will come with MIGs, too;-)
Except that one can put a different avionics system into the same airframe.
The F-111s have been updated with a new-generation system already, and the
Australian Airforce intends to put yet another into them before they are
thrown out sometime in the next century. The same happened with the B-52.
There are many competing packages for updating MIG-21s, e.g., one Czech, one
Israeli (!), with modern avionics, turbine and armaments. What I read
suggests that these turn the tired old thing into a wasp with quite a bite.
There is no reason why one could not do that with the MIG-29. Given that
the airframe of this plane is quite up to scratch, modern avionics and
better armaments would transform the MIG-29 into something quite
respectable.
George Antony

Is it only me with the obvious-looking question -
do any country really need this expensive killing
technology? Who benefits, besides those who selling them?
Wouldn't money be better spent raising living standards?
If there is enough for everybody, there is less quarrel...

As far I know, many millions of dollars have been spent by the old
Soviet Government on training Hungarians to pilot Soviet Fighters (a relative
is still flying Migs). So where have all these, presumably, hundreds of highly
trained pilots?
Karcsi

Kanala writes:
>An another example: an Iranian airplane (yes a civil aviation airplane,>rather a sad story) has been shot over the Red Sea a couple years ago>by a US fregate who shot a rocket automatically when an unidentified>aircraft approached directly at it.
Very, very bad example....that was an ugly human mistake.That flight was
registered flight which they didn't check out because the plain looked
sooooo as an enemy aircraft. (Beside the missile is *not* outomatically
shot)
>A MIG has no chance in a combat with a Western aircraft because it has>no electronics that would keep pace with. That means a MIG will be shot>long before the pilot gets aware what's gonna happen to him.
You are bluffing. I strongly recommend you to check out this just-
running thread in sci.military: "Mig-29 vs. F-14, long distance ex-
change". I only copy to here one remark:
>From (TyrnsrsLex)>[..] and add that MiG29 is highly unlikely platform>for anti-ship attack at any rate. The Fulcrum is an interceptor, designed>originally to beat high-flying, supersonic bombers. With that threat no>longer any (and never much of) a part of the opposing doctrine, the 29 is>still viewed as an interceptor, but of the air superiority variety. It's a>very fine airplane for that job (arguably it is a better defensive>platform than the Tomcat), and might concievably be used to attrit a>carrier's Tomcat cap as a prelude to an attack on the surface units, but>isn't going to be likely to attack those units on its own.
/*---*/
>That's the reason Finland bought F-18 and Switzerland bought F-18>Hornets, too: they are heavy, bulky, expensive, but there is nothing>better on the market these days.
You definitely picked the wrong explanation. They want to be compatible
to NATO *and* they are in the financial position to buy expensiver
hardware.
>MIG is a hopelessly obsolete equipment and is a good buy only when the>expected enemy will come with MIGs, too;-)
I haven't flown neither Mig's nor F18's so I have to believe your edu-
cated opinion.. :) :)
I think the discussion went beyond our capability to run it. I am going
to start a thread in sci.military, check it out later on next week.
(It is moderated group, reacts slowly)
Tamas

As of March 16, the official rate was $1=HF119.96. If you have access to WWW
you can have the official rate of all currencies at the following URL:
HTTP://www.ora.com/CGI-BIN/ORA/CURRENCY
It is updated weekly.
Enjoy your trip.
Alex

Jan George Frajkor wrote:
> Thus the Mig-29s are not a waste of money because their engines do>not last and they use lots of fuel.> In a war, where airplanes are>expected to have a short service life, the length of life of the>engine is relativeily unimportant. When a plane is shot down, it>...>conceivable enemy can perform, for the short time that the>plane and pilot are alive.
It is clear by this statement that you have zero understanding of hi-tech
warfare. An example:
The US did not have nearly as many planes as North Vietnam did during the
Vietnam War.
Thay relied on BETTER planes. This is why the US had at least a 4:1 ratio of
enemy:US planes losses (after the Top Gun program was started this ratio went u
p
to
about 16:1). In high tech warfare you plan to keep your pilots alive, since yo
u
only
have a few planes (and, incidently, trying to keep your guys alive helps your
fight).
The same has always been true of the ratio of US planes to Soviet planes - they
always
had more, but ours were better. If Hungary were to have a war with a country
that has
US planes, then Hungary would need more planes since the US planes are better,
but thay
are not that much better that you plan your stategy around losing planes and
pilots.
Remember, Migs are hi-tech planes too, and Hungary only has a handful of them -
they
are hardly what you'd call 'disposable planes', and even if they were, Hungary
doesn't
have enough of them to sacrifice them.
Your 'disposable plane' strategy was what the Japanese used since their planes
were of
much lover quality than the US planes. This is why they employed suicide
missions
against US ships, by crashing fuel filled planes into US ships. The Japanese
made
many more, very simple planes than the US possessed, but they could not overcom
e
the
US planes.
Pilot skill is equally as important as the plane - remember the increase in US
success
ratio after Top Gun was started. With few planes as Hungary has, they would be
wise to
train their pilots to be among the best in the world, and putting the extra
money into
maintaining their Migs as necessary - or buying American planes if they can.
Paul

Eva D. wrote:
>technology? Who benefits, besides those who selling them?>Wouldn't money be better spent raising living standards?
I agree - for the short term Hungary would be well off to reduce the military
to skeleton, just enough size to keep the structure - it is always easier to
increase the size of a complex organizization which exists, than to create one
from scratch. The only exceptions should be the purcahse of deals that are 'to
o
good
to pass up', though I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if the Migs fall into
that
category (better to have some Migs now, than none later when the price returns
to
a fair market price and you cannot efford them). But for the most part, it
would be
best to spend only the minimum on the military, and only that much in case of
trouble with the Serbs. If there was no war in Bosnia, I'd say spend only what
was
necessary to keep the structure there, for the next 5-10 years till the economy
has improved. Then, begin the long term process of establishing a moderate
military.
Paul

Roman Kanala
wrote:
>A MIG has no chance in a combat with a Western aircraft because it has>no electronics that would keep pace with. That means a MIG will be shot
More electronics does not make a better plane. During the Vietnam War, US
pilots
were have trouble understanding the huge amount of information thrown at them b
y
the
plane's computers. They actually turned them off to be able to concentrate, an
d
their
performance improved.
I thought the better manuverabiliy of the
Mig 29 made it a better plane than the US planes? Is this incorrect from the
point of
view of the pilots (ignoring the issue of maintainance)?
Paul

Jozef Simek wrote:
>No, no, Ferenc - you are wrong. Both Trianon and Vienna arbitration was>the result of pressure. But Magyars showed in 19th century after 1867>how they can treat with other minorities (Only Croats were an exception).>And maybe it was one of reasons that president Wilson agreed with>dividing of Hu kingdom and with new states.
As I know, president Wilson did not agree with the peace treaties after
WWI. He may have agreed with dividing Hungary, but not with the current
process of drawing the new borders. He wanted to deciede on the borders
by polling the inhabitants of the given area. Only one such a poll was
held. As a result of that poll the town of Sopron and some villages around
it now belong to Hungary and not to Austria.
Am I wrong if I think that the USA was not present and signed the the Paris
(and Trianon) peace treaties? I am really not sure.
Andras Nemeth

RE: Comments on the desirability of bartering for obsolete MiGs.
1. Andras (Kornai) on 18 March writes
< MIG price/performance ratio has a compelling advantage, since the
< price is effectively zero
On March 21, on the contrary, he now concedes that
< in the sense that Hungary exported goods of some sort and now imports
< Migs, they are indeed not free
2. It is gratifying to note that Andras admits that the MiG29's are
inferior, for on 21 March he says,
< ..Russians, who are now laying similarly second-rate stuff on us
Question: if you are equipping your troops with second rate weapons, do
you expect to prevail against an adversary? How? (It may be worthwhile
to recall the fate of the Hungarian Army on the Don whose equipment
was substandard vis-a-vis its adversary and the effect that this had
on the outcome of the battle. See for example Nemeskurty's "Requiem
egy Hadseregert.") Would you send your son to fight to defend your
country with inferior equipment, especially when there is a better
alternative?
3. The question of price has to be seen in the context of what is at
stake. How much is your freedom worth to you? If MiGs are unlikely to be
a part of the successful mix of weapons, the reasonable course of action
should be intuitively obvious.
4. Even if one could agree with the logic of the comment
< unless they have the same kind of equipment...
it does not address the problem of the superiority of numbers of the
potential aggressor.
5. If this is an example of the political skills of the present regime
in Budapest (as exemplified in the recovery of "bad" debts), the future
looks ominous for their country.
6. The rest of Andras' comments of 21 March are arguments ad hominem. They
do not support or lend credence to his point of view.
7. Finally, George (Antony) on 23 March states that
< ... modern avionics and better armaments would transform the MIG-29
< into something quite respectable.
If so, what happened to the "cost" argument? Why not get something
which already has all these features, and much more?
C.K. ZOLTANI

In article: > Stiphane Guinard
> writes:
>> Hi! It's Stiphane on the line. I'm living in Paris and finishing
my
> studies here this year. Next year I'm going to Hungary for my job. I will> probably spend one or two years there, so I would like to learn more about> the country, his hystory, his people. Everything I have managed to get> about Hungary until now is the kind of things you can read in handbooks> for tourists... It's a little superficial. What I would like to perform
with Int
> ernet> is to establish relationships with friends in the country before going. It
would
> be great to have someone to chat with, who would know the country.>> Impatiently waiting for your answer on my Email, Stiphane.>>
--
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Laszlo Heckenast, London, England |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
as you can see from my address I do not live in Hungary now, but I can
answer questions about my country. And I also have a flat (one large
sitting room and two bedrooms plus garage, in a nice area of Budapest) to
rent. Irf you are interested, please folow up this article or contact me
direct by e-mail.
Laszlo

Csaba Zoltani wrote:
> RE: Comments on the desirability of bartering for obsolete MiGs.>> 1. Andras (Kornai) on 18 March writes>> < MIG price/performance ratio has a compelling advantage, since the> < price is effectively zero>> On March 21, on the contrary, he now concedes that>> < in the sense that Hungary exported goods of some sort and now imports> < Migs, they are indeed not free
You see a contradiction only because you cannot understand a number of
essential practial and conceptual points.
1. There is a consensus that debt owed by Russia
to an unimportant little country such as Hungary as as good as lost. Its
value is practically zero, because there is little chance to collect. If
you do not believe us, ask the international credit-rating agencies, e.g.,
Standard and Poors.
2. As such, the cost of unreciprocated Hungarian exports to Russia is what
economists call a sunk cost. It is lost, you cannot recover it, hence you
should ignore it in decision-making about the future. When making decisions
about the future you should only considered costs and benefits over which
you have a control. Ergo, what Hungary exported to the USSR in past years
is irrelevant to today's decision making.
3. When we only consider future costs and benefits, Hungary is getting
more modern equipment than what she has for very little.
> 2. It is gratifying to note that Andras admits that the MiG29's are> inferior, for on 21 March he says,
You are still pushing this line, without any evidence, just on the basis
of your axiom that 'it must be US to be good'. Circumstantial evidence
shows otherwise. South-East Asian countries, Malaysia, Thailand and
Indonesia, have been considering buying MIG-29s. THey are not desperate
for cash, so price is not the most important consideration (although it
is always nice to get something at a discount). They are both security
conscious and keen on fancy military hardware. They have neighbours who
have first-line US equipment (Singapore, Australia), and a large potential
enemy that is acquiring first-line Russian gear (China). Still, it took
the US considerably arm-twisting to talk the Thais out of the MIGs, the
Indonesians haven't decided yet, and the Malaysians have bought them.
You can call Malaysian leaders many names but they are not stupid, nor
broke.
> Question: if you are equipping your troops with second rate weapons, do> [...]> country with inferior equipment, especially when there is a better> alternative?
You are so glaringly out of touch with Hungarian realities that it is amazing.
Hungary has just announced radical cuts in social-security payments to
mothers with small children. Calling extremely expensive US warplanes
an alternative *at all* shows astonishing ignorance.
>Finally, George Antony wrote:> < ... modern avionics and better armaments would transform the MIG-29> < into something quite respectable.>> If so, what happened to the "cost" argument? Why not get something> which already has all these features, and much more?
It is rather insulting to your debating partners that you base your argument
on basic flaws of logic and expect them (us) to pick these up. Of course, the
cost argument is still there: the MIG cost nearly nothing in the first
place, so buying an after-market avionics gear for it is obviously cheaper
than buying a whole plane from a US manufacturer. Especially if you consider
that US arms suppliers practise oligopolistic pricing (reinforced by the
US government's export licensing rules), while there is cutthroat competition
in component supplies such as avionics (the Western-Europeans, in particular,
have much fewer scruples than the US, hence, the price is likely to be much
lower).
George Antony